State v. Daschendorf

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

State v. Daschendorf

371 N.W.2d 255, 1985 Minn. App. LEXIS 4409

CourtCourt of Appeals of Minnesota

DecidedJuly 23, 1985

DocketNo. C7-85-984

StatusPublished

This text of 371 N.W.2d 255 (State v. Daschendorf) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Daschendorf, 371 N.W.2d 255, 1985 Minn. App. LEXIS 4409 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY OPINION

LESLIE, Judge.

FACTS

In 1981 appellant Craig Daschendorf pleaded guilty to burglary. Imposition of sentence was stayed and he was placed on probation. On April 15, 1984, a probation violation hearing was held in which appellant admitted that he had two misdemeanor D.W.I. convictions and one gross misdemeanor D.W.I. conviction since he was placed on probation. The trial court subsequently revoked probation and ordered execution of sentence of one year and one day to the Minnesota Commissioner of Corrections. On appeal Daschendorf challenges the revocation of probation.

DECISION

The trial court has broad discretion in determining whether probation should be revoked and that decision will be upset only upon a showing of a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Austin, 295 N.W.2d 246 [256]*256(Minn.1980); State v. Spanyard, 358 N.W.2d 125 (Minn.Ct.App.1984); State v. Hemmings, 371 N.W.2d 44 (Minn.Ct.App.1985).

The report of the corrections agent recommended that probation be revoked because of appellant’s continued conduct. Appellant clearly violated a condition of probation by committing several offenses while on probation. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking probation and imposing an executed prison sentence of one year and one day.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY OPINION

LESLIE, Judge.

FACTS

In 1981 appellant Craig Daschendorf pleaded guilty to burglary. Imposition of sentence was stayed and he was placed on probation. On April 15, 1984, a probation violation hearing was held in which appellant admitted that he had two misdemeanor D.W.I. convictions and one gross misdemeanor D.W.I. conviction since he was placed on probation. The trial court subsequently revoked probation and ordered execution of sentence of one year and one day to the Minnesota Commissioner of Corrections. On appeal Daschendorf challenges the revocation of probation.

DECISION

The trial court has broad discretion in determining whether probation should be revoked and that decision will be upset only upon a showing of a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Austin, 295 N.W.2d 246 [256]*256(Minn.1980); State v. Spanyard, 358 N.W.2d 125 (Minn.Ct.App.1984); State v. Hemmings, 371 N.W.2d 44 (Minn.Ct.App.1985).

The report of the corrections agent recommended that probation be revoked because of appellant’s continued conduct. Appellant clearly violated a condition of probation by committing several offenses while on probation. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking probation and imposing an executed prison sentence of one year and one day.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

371 N.W.2d 255, 1985 Minn. App. LEXIS 4409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-daschendorf-minnctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack